Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

MixInMixIn
VS
TFG (The Foschini Group)TFG (The Foschini Group)
MixIn

MixIn

26 Waterloo St, Surry Hills, 2010, AU

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.mixin.com.au/
766/1000Fair

MixIn is the Retail Media Arm for Endeavour Drinks Group with Australia leading drinks ecosystem with Dan Murphy's, BWS and ALH.

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:7
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TFG (The Foschini Group)

TFG (The Foschini Group)

340 Voortrekker Road, Cape Town, 7500, ZA

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tfgcareers.co.za
771/1000Fair

TFG holds a diversified portfolio of speciality retail assets across various product categories and consumer segments. The Group has a portfolio of 35 leading retail brands, with over 4600 outlets in 23 countries on five continents, offering customers a variety of speci...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:27,962
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MixIn

MixIn

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
TFG (The Foschini Group)

TFG (The Foschini Group)

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MixIn in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TFG (The Foschini Group) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - MixIn (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MixIn cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - TFG (The Foschini Group) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TFG (The Foschini Group) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
MixIn

MixIn

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TFG (The Foschini Group)

TFG (The Foschini Group)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between MixIn company and TFG (The Foschini Group) company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between MixIn and TFG (The Foschini Group), which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between MixIn and TFG (The Foschini Group), which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - MixIn or TFG (The Foschini Group) ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - MixIn or TFG (The Foschini Group) ?
Between MixIn and TFG (The Foschini Group), which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between MixIn and TFG (The Foschini Group), which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-65388
SUMMARY

A remote attacker who controls a container registry may be able to direct a client's token request to a host of the attacker's choice, and disclose the victim's registry credentials to that host. This vulnerability is addressed in containerization version 0.41.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-61599
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, the djust live transport resolves the LiveView to mount from a client-supplied dotted path by calling `__import__(module_path, ...)`. The module is imported — running its top-level code (import side effects) — before the framework checks that the resolved object is a `LiveView` subclass and before any per-view authentication. The `LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES` allowlist that should contain this is fail-open (`if allowed_modules:` — skipped when the setting is unset, the framework default) and uses loose `startswith` matching. An unauthenticated WebSocket client (the WS handshake does not require auth; per-view auth runs only after import + instantiate) can therefore send a `mount` / `live_redirect_mount` / `url_change` frame (or an SSE mount) with `view = "<any.importable.module>.AnyName"` and cause the server to import — and execute the top-level code of — any importable Python module by name. Version 1.0.7 fixes the issue with a fail-closed resolution gate (`djust._view_resolution.is_view_import_allowed`): a client view path resolves only if (a) its module is already loaded (`sys.modules` — so resolving runs no new code; URL-routed views loaded by URLconf at startup keep working with zero config) or (b) it matches `LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES` on a module-segment boundary (explicit opt-in for lazily-imported views). The gate runs before `__import__` at all three sinks (+ defense-in-depth inside `_instantiate_view`). As a workaround, set `LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES` to the narrow list of modules that contain your mountable LiveView classes. (Note: pre-patch the allowlist is `startswith`-matched and the import still precedes the subclass check, so this is mitigation, not a complete fix.)

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-61596
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, djust's per-object authorization (`get_object` + `has_object_permission`, ADR-017) was enforced on the WebSocket mount and event paths but not on three other render entry points: (a) the initial HTTP GET render, (b) SPA `url_change` navigation, and (c) `{% live_render %}` embedded child views. An authenticated user could therefore view (and on some paths act on) an object they are not authorized for by loading the page directly, navigating to it via SPA url-change, or composing it as an embedded child — a classic IDOR / broken object-level access control on object-scoped views. This is fixed in djust 1.0.7. All render entry points now route through a shared `enforce_object_permission` chokepoint: HTTP GET returns 403, `url_change` emits a `permission_denied` frame and skips the render, and `{% live_render %}` (eager + lazy) refuses the embed. Views without a custom `get_object` are unaffected (no-op). No reliable workaround short of upgrading. Do not expose object-scoped views through the HTTP-GET / url_change / live_render paths until patched.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-61589
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, the WebSocket `handle_mount` and `ViewRuntime._build_request` rebuild an `HttpRequest` via `RequestFactory().get(...)` with no `HTTP_HOST`, so `request.get_host()` defaulted to `"testserver"` on the live path. Host/subdomain/domain `TenantResolver`s then misresolved the tenant — `None` on the live path while the HTTP path resolved correctly. With `STRICT_MODE=False` the tenant-scoped managers returned unscoped rows (cross-tenant disclosure); with the default they returned an empty queryset (broken tenancy). This is fixed in djust 1.0.7. The handshake Host is extracted from the ASGI scope, validated against `ALLOWED_HOSTS` (the same logic as the CSWSH Origin gate, parsed with Django's `split_domain_port` so malformed Hosts are rejected at the boundary), and propagated — with the TLS scheme — into the reconstructed request, so live-path tenant resolution matches HTTP exactly. There is no known workaround on the live path short of upgrading. Users are most exposed when combined with `STRICT_MODE=False`.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-61588
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, when a Django `Model` instance is assigned to a public view attribute, djust serialized it to the client with no sensitive-field denylist — sending fields such as `password` (the hash), privilege flags (e.g. `is_staff` / `is_superuser`), tokens, and other PII to the browser. Because exposing model objects to templates is a normal djust pattern, this could leak credentials/PII without the developer realizing the full object crossed the wire. This is fixed in djust 1.0.7. Model serialization applies a secure-by-default sensitive-field denylist (password/hash/token/secret-style fields and known privilege flags are withheld) with an identity-subset fallback. As a workaround, keep `Model` instances on `_private` attributes and expose only the specific fields needed, until patched.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8